覃錫鴻 對 金英子經營新世界食品公司

覃錫鴻 對 金英子經營新世界食品公司

The Court held the Tribunal correctly applied Lam Siu Wai: because the respondent terminated the contract by exercising contractual rights and paid the contractual notice period, the applicant had no legal basis to claim 12 months' compensation; accordingly the Tribunal did not err in law in striking out the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3488
Parties
Applicant: CHUM SEK HUNG CARMAN; Respondent: KIM YOUNG JA TRADING AS NEW WORLD TRADING COMPANY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2022
Case Number
HCLA12/2022
Procedural Posture
Labour Tribunal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Contractual Termination, Compensation Limited to Notice Pay, Witness Costs, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
ch
Employment Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Unfair Dismissal Contractual Termination Compensation Limited to Notice Pay Witness Costs +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHUM SEK HUNG CARMAN

Applicant

KIM YOUNG JA TRADING AS NEW WORLD TRADING COMPANY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Tribunal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the applicant's compensation claim for 12 months' salary
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to compensation beyond contractual notice pay where dismissal was exercised under contract
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's costs order compensating the respondent for employee witnesses' wages was lawful

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the Tribunal correctly applied Lam Siu Wai: because the respondent terminated the contract by exercising contractual rights and paid the contractual notice period, the applicant had no legal basis to claim 12 months' compensation; accordingly the Tribunal did not err in law in striking out the compensation claim, and the costs order compensating the respondent for wages paid to employee witnesses was lawful under s28(1) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Labour Tribunal decision upheld including the costs order awarded to the respondent